Global Warming

All we need to do is get the director of "Deep Impact" and "Armageddon" on the phone for consultation on how they did it.

 

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eLy74FV9

 

Of course, it that is still way below the average from the 80's, 70's and beyond. Again, inventing a new trend (the article claiming global cooling) from one data point.

 

A fly in the ointment!

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

Oldvol. Tennessee has won 2 football games. Tennessee is back, baby!

That is the same logic being employed here. It has grown 60 % because it was at an all-time low last year. It is still below average and trending down.


Now, I'm going to get nasty and it is likely I will be called names and whatnot, but: It takes whole lot more effort to learn about something and understand it than not to. Folks constantly naysaying this topic at this point are ignorant asses. I've talked about this exact misleading tactic before on here. We hit a record, and like clock work one year later it is claimed that no longer being equal to that record is a contradiction or "fly in the ointment." Don't be a retard.

 

Why can't it be as simple as things change, as well? Couldn't the rise/drop in temperatures be attributed more to better technology and calibration of that technology, versus the rudimentary and not always accurate technology that has been used for hundreds of year prior to the tech boom? How do we know the climate change phenomenon hasn't been occuring for long periods of time, before we had people staring at it and watching it like they were waiting for water to boil?

I know you view me as rather simple minded IP, but since I work with computers and databases everyday, I know that a dataset is only as good as the data you put in it. I'm not going to say anyone is falsifying info to get what they want, but knowing what the government and other governing bodies want people to believe, you can understand why someone would question it.

I hope you understand where I am coming from, because simply looking at that link and seeing the data only going back to 1981, it seems like the dataset isn't that large to start with, so any variation is going to be recorded as larger than it possibly is/was.

 

Paleoclimatology is my specialty. We have records going back hundreds of thousands of years. We have precise global satellite data going back almost 40 years. You are arguing from ignorance. Your mind has been made up and now you are looking for a way to fit facts to your opinion. I don't see how we can have a productive conversation.

 

Let me ask you this then, do you subscribe to the humanity is going to spiral this planet out of control due to weather phenomenon we are creating due to our habits, or do you subscribe to the weather is cyclical stance and we are just truly learning how it really works in the nuts and bolts of it all?

 

How are the two mutually exclusive, and what do you mean by "out of control?" Is climate controlled by someone?

 

The earth has gotten hotter.

The hard part is that people on the extreme on both sides playing politics and pandering to their bases mudding the water on the issue.

 

I was asking if you either believe that humans are the problem, or are we largely just now starting to better understand how things really work, in regards to climate change? Do you believe that blaming humans is wreckless?

 

You aren't taking into account the hurricane preventing technology we have somewhere in Alaska designed to take on the Russians or Chinese who have used similar tech to cause Katrina. I think it was in Alaska. All I know is that it was reported on the history channel on a show with Jonathan Frakes as narrator. I'm not sure they've (You know who they are. It's them) got a climate change control machine figured out, but I'm sure it's coming soon.

 

Is the energy (heat) emitted from the Sun constant or does it fluctuate?

 

Not thinking humans have a measurable impact is reckless and dumb. Organisms can and have influence climate. You breathing is proof of that.

The "or" in your statement is creating a false dichotomy.

It is known absolutely that carbon dioxide from anthropogenic sources (i.e. fossil fuels) is the majority factor in the increase in greenhouse warming. It is fact, and there is no way to talk one's way around it without willfully ignoring that fact.

 

It constantly fluctuates. We've talked about this before. Yes, the sun is the ultimate source of all energy on Earth. Yes, it is the uneven heating of the Earth through its tilt, rotation, and curvature that drives weather and climate as we know it. No, those variables do not account for what we are talking about. It is no different than asking if football coaches do not sometimes lose football games, and then making a case for holding on to [ddiapos].

 

Voldad, do you care to comment on the link and point I made in response to your global cooling article? With it being 60% increased from a year ago, with a year ago being the lowest level on record?

Points per game have almost doubled for UT since 2005. We're back!

 

We need more clean energy sources... Oh wait... Eagle slaughter: Wind farms kill 67 eagles in 5 years

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/11/eagle-slaughter-wind-farms-kill-67-eagles-5-years/

 

If you bothered to do a search, you'll see me talk about the problems of wind turbines every time it has come up on this board.

But let's analyze this post of yours. We're talking about climate change, and you bring up alternative energy being bad... How is that directly linked to climate change? What is the logical connection? Does a wind turbine killing birds prove anything in regards to climate change occurring and what is driving it? No.

So why throw it in? If I had to guess, it is because you have a deep-seated emotional disdain for "Green" issues in general.


And let's talk about 67 eagles in 5 years. That's 13.4 eagles a year in our country. How many eagles are there now? 200,000?

 

Too damn many. They're gubmint spies.

 

I think it is fairly obvious we are warming..or were warming (due to the recent decade+ hiatus of rising temps). I think is is also obvious that man has had an influence on the warming. The trillion dollar question is, how much influence. In my opinion I think the climate sensitivity has been vastly overstated. The climate models are then programmed with these inflated sensitivities and you get ridiculous outcomes vs observed reality. Temps have already responded to the PDO flip in the early 2000's, now the AMO is about to flip as well. What will the climate alarmists do if temps continue to stagnate over the next couple of decades in response to PDO/AMO? Will they take another look at their failed CO2 hypothesis or will they continue to sell the snake oil, just labeled under a different name, such as Mr. Trenberth who says the heat is hiding in the deep oceans and will come back to haunt us in the future?